Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi – www.israelhayom.com https://www.israelhayom.com israelhayom english website Tue, 04 Nov 2025 10:07:18 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.2 https://www.israelhayom.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/cropped-G_rTskDu_400x400-32x32.jpg Prof. Abraham Ben-Zvi – www.israelhayom.com https://www.israelhayom.com 32 32 The rise of Mamdani and return of Jewish fear https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/11/04/zohran-mamdani-new-york-jewish-community-antisemitism/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/11/04/zohran-mamdani-new-york-jewish-community-antisemitism/#respond Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:00:23 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1100151 Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani's potential victory in Tuesday's New York City mayoral election threatens to resurrect decades of Jewish insecurity and loyalty accusations, according to analysis by Professor Avraham Ben-Zvi, challenging the separation between Jewish identity and Zionism that defined American Jewish progress since the 1960s.

The post The rise of Mamdani and return of Jewish fear appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>

Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani's potential victory in Tuesday's New York City mayoral election could trigger a seismic shift in American Jewish history, threatening to resurrect decades of insecurity and loyalty accusations that defined earlier, darker periods. Democratic candidate Zohran Mamdani's potential victory, even by a narrow margin, would constitute a major earthquake in American Jewish history if it were to occur, thrusting the community back through time in one fell swoop to dark and challenging periods.

Ironically, a large segment of Jewish voters – primarily younger generation members – may contribute to this transformation if Mamdani succeeds in maintaining the advantage he held throughout the campaign against his main rival, former Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Beyond the immediate danger – an enthusiastic BDS supporter entering the mayor's office, someone who pledged to arrest Netanyahu upon arrival in New York and opposes Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state – an equally serious challenge exists. Mamdani attempts to create an artificial and absurd separation between his open hostility to Zionism and antisemitism (from which he tries to distance himself): his very rise to center stage confronts the Jewish community, not just in New York, with a profound challenge regarding Jewish-American identity.

New York Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks during an election rally with Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at Forest Hills Stadium on October 26, 2025 in the Queens borough of New York City (Photo: Andres Kudacki/Getty Images/AFP) Andres Kudacki/Getty Images/AFP

Throughout most of the 20th century, American Jews sought the golden path between loyalty to their heritage and the institutions of American society that absorbed them, and their connection to Zionism and identification with their people, whether their siblings who returned to their homeland or their relatives trapped in the Nazi enemy's clutches in Europe.

The intense desire to integrate into the new homeland produced an especially cautious pattern among community leaders, who preferred integration over the principle "all Jews are responsible for one another," while fearful of the antisemitic accusation of "dual loyalty."

Thus, most community leaders, except for rare individuals like Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, avoided pressuring President Theodore Roosevelt to speak out clearly against the atrocities – ostensibly to avoid "burdening" his agenda, but actually from fear the move would be perceived as a "sectarian" initiative inconsistent with "American national interest." Roosevelt explained to his acquiescent guests that only after defeating Nazi Germany could efforts turn to rescuing European Jews, with everything depending on victory in the campaign. The anxiety about their status tipped the scales and left the massive Jewish population in Europe abandoned to its bitter fate. Roosevelt, despite the massive Jewish support he received in elections, allowed State Department officials to implement a closed-door policy against Jewish refugees.

Even in Israel's first decade, community leaders continued fearing for their status, with memories of the antisemitic wave of the 1920s and 1930s – the era of Henry Ford and his antisemitic ilk – still engraved in their consciousness.

Facing a renewed antisemitic wave – whose peak was the McCarthy committee, with most victims being Jewish – they remained passive when the Eisenhower administration applied brutal pressure on Israel to withdraw from Sinai after Operation Kadesh. Despite Truman's recognition of the state shortly after the Declaration of Independence, US administrations until 1962 persisted in refusing to supply weapons to Israel – also without loud protest from the community.

Jewish men walk along the street in the Stamford Hill area of north London on January 19, 2011 in London, England (Photo: Oli Scarff/Getty Images) Getty Images

The turning point came only in the 1960s: Israel became a strategic partner in the White House's eyes, and the Jewish-American dissonance between their identities gradually dissolved. The community began emerging from the freeze and allowed itself to openly and declaratively support the State of Israel through institutions established by its leaders (such as AIPAC) without fearing accusations of "un-Americanism." During those subsequent decades, these institutions succeeded in preventing the rise of hostile elected officials to Israel and thwarting punitive measures that endangered the "special relationship" between Jerusalem and Washington.

Today, the sensitive issues of identity and affiliation, which had seemed to have dissolved, have reopened and been torn apart with rough hands. This is where the deep significance of the Mamdani phenomenon lies. In the past, politicians with critical approaches toward Israel had to prove, when trying to get elected to more senior positions, that they were not hostile to Israel and counted among its supporters.

The picture is completely different today. Facing a fractured Jewish community more critical of Israel, and facing the dramatic weakening of organizations that worked on its behalf for decades, conditions have ripened for Mamdani's rise. He challenges the very essence of Zionism, defines it as illegitimate, and explicitly places a significant portion of New York Jews – for whom Zionism is an inseparable part of their identity – outside the camp. The sad irony embedded in this is that despite Mamdani's challenge, or declaration of war, on Zionism, polls predict he will gain significant support among Jews, who support his demagogic and populist "social" doctrine and get dragged after the fashionable radicalism he represents – while denying their cultural and value heritage.

The coming days will reveal whether this involves a murky but passing wave, or perhaps a real tsunami requiring a system overhaul and renewed thinking, from both community leaders in New York and across the American space, as well as from the State of Israel and its leaders. The result could be fateful: the return of an era of Jewish fear and insecurity in America.

The post The rise of Mamdani and return of Jewish fear appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/11/04/zohran-mamdani-new-york-jewish-community-antisemitism/feed/
The 47th president's super-mediator model is the only path https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/10/12/the-47th-presidents-super-mediator-model-is-the-only-path/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/10/12/the-47th-presidents-super-mediator-model-is-the-only-path/#respond Sun, 12 Oct 2025 09:07:52 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1094369 In March 1996, amid the backdrop of the severe wave of terror attacks that the Hamas organization led against Israel, an international conference on combating terrorism convened in Sharm el-Sheikh, whose main sponsors were President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Shimon Peres. However, beyond a pompous concluding statement that forcefully condemned the acts of terror […]

The post The 47th president's super-mediator model is the only path appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
In March 1996, amid the backdrop of the severe wave of terror attacks that the Hamas organization led against Israel, an international conference on combating terrorism convened in Sharm el-Sheikh, whose main sponsors were President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Shimon Peres.

However, beyond a pompous concluding statement that forcefully condemned the acts of terror and called for international cooperation to eradicate this violent and grave threat to Israel's security and regional stability, the wave of Hamas terror renewed with all its might and cruelty, sowing murder and destruction in Israel. Thus, the dream of the meeting's architects to cultivate a more reconciled and terror-free regional environment solely through rhetorical and declarative means vanished in fire and smoke.

Families of hostages propose to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize in September 2025 (Gideon Markowicz)

Nearly three decades since that stinging and resounding failure, it brings up from the abyss of oblivion and forgetfulness the pathetic and naive attempt by Britain and France in 1928 to outlaw the use of war through a toothless document and enforcement mechanisms (the Kellogg-Briand Pact).

Sharm el-Sheikh once again became the focus of mediation efforts, designed to end the fighting in Gaza and ensure, with the help of tools and mechanisms to be established later on, that the same violent and extremist Hamas would be removed and excluded from the centers of control, influence, and the military infrastructure it established. And this time, it would be done effectively and long-term, unlike the failed initiative of 1996.

Indeed, while the 1996 Sharm el-Sheikh conference featured colorful scenery but yielded no results, this time the quiet contacts held in Sharm el-Sheikh produced a dramatic agreement for a ceasefire and the release of all the hostages (Phase A of President Donald Trump's settlement plan), which was signed on October 9, 2025, between Israel and Hamas, brokered by the US, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar.

A destroyed home in Be'eri, following the Oct. 7 atrocities (Moshe Shai)

The uniqueness of the agreement (even though it does not include agreements regarding all the patterns and details of the implementation of the next phases of the president's plan), which succeeded in bringing about a cessation of fire after two years of a difficult campaign, is rooted in the conduct and behavioral patterns of the American super-mediator, who demonstrated creative and resolute leadership, out-of-the-box thinking beyond traditional diplomatic frameworks, and a readiness to make optimal use, at the right time, of all the levers of pressure and influence at his disposal.

While the diplomatic virtuoso, Henry Kissinger, preferred to obscure or blur the final goal of his mediation efforts, and instead proceed using a slow and gradual method toward realizing his settlement vision, the 47th president Donald Trump presented the goal of ending the war (and not just achieving a ceasefire agreement) as his central objective from the outset.

Furthermore, in his diplomatic activity in the arena, the 47th president created a completely new model of a super-mediator, overshadowing even the legendary Henry Kissinger in his level of sophistication and originality. While the former US Secretary of State acted not only as an effective mediator but also as a factor that rewarded the parties during the mediation he led on the way to the interim agreement he achieved between Israel and Egypt in September 1975, Donald Trump demonstrated his full prowess last week by not settling for traditional and direct mediation, but by granting a package of incentives and perks to the sub-mediators.

Pressures on Hamas

He did not, therefore, limit himself to promising compensation (or issuing warnings, implied or explicit) to the warring parties themselves. This was to strengthen the motivation of these sub-mediators (mainly Turkey and Qatar) to exert heavy pressures on Hamas so that it would agree to soften its rigid positions.

Regarding Turkey, the American compensation appears particularly far-reaching. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was promised the supply of F-35 aircraft, which he so coveted to receive, and he is slated to become a legitimate player in the agreement's implementation process.

Thus, the White House managed to create a two-layered web of heavy-weight levers of influence on Hamas. The cumulative weight of these levers made it hard for the terror organization, at the current time, to reject his plan. (Regarding Israel, Donald Trump directly applied these levers, but with a completely different dosage). This created the necessary infrastructure for the entire deal, in which carrots and sticks were integrated based on the business principle of "give and take" from Donald Trump's business background.

Hamas' dependence on Turkey

Although Qatar has long been known for dancing not only with the US but also with the devil, the fact that Doha had not succeeded in its mediation efforts until now (especially following the failed Israeli attack against senior Hamas officials in Qatar) is what led the president to his unprecedented decision to turn to Ankara, to shower Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with words of praise and flattery, and exploited the Hamas movement's great dependence on Turkey to turn it into a central executive contractor for his plan.

People react as they celebrate following the announcement that Israel and Hamas have agreed to the first phase of a peace plan to pause the fighting, at a plaza known as hostages square in Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday, Oct. 9, 2025 / AP / Emilio Morenatti

In this way, he also upgraded Turkey's security and political ties with Washington (in the hope that the price for strengthening Turkey and bringing it into the arena would not be too high for Israel, and that the American partner would provide Israel with appropriate security compensation for this).

Furthermore, in his activity as a super-mediator, Donald Trump revealed a deep understanding of the timing of his powerful entry onto the stage. The level of support for Israel around the world, and especially among the American public (including among the party's youth), has recently fallen to an unprecedented low (and also reflected on the status of the American superpower, Israel's loyal ally).

The fact that the Israeli action in Doha threatened to unravel the loose seams of the Abraham Accords and steer the Middle East down a path of chaos and instability, led the president to increase his activity. This was also in light of the growing criticism from wide sectors in Israeli society regarding what appeared to be a futile bogging down in the sands and alleys of Gaza.

Frustration in the White House

The growing frustration in the White House with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's promises of Hamas' total collapse, which did not materialize, and its sensitivity to the worsening condition of the hostages and the humanitarian distress in the strip, contributed to his decision that the time was ripe to throw his full weight into an increased effort to immediately bring about a cessation of the fighting (while also being ready to apply pressure on Israel not to resort to tactics of delay and postponement).

Tourists visit Peace Square, during preparations for an international summit on Gaza, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 11, 2025 (Reuters / Amr Abdallah Dalsh)

Thus, a window of opportunity was created by the president for the establishment of a ceasefire between Israel, isolated in the international arena and where growing signs of domestic fatigue and frustration are intensifying, and the terror organization, which has been significantly weakened and has lost most of its strongholds and centers of control. This was, of course, with the assistance of the sub-mediators, primarily Ankara, who mobilized for the mission of applying increased pressure on the terror organization.

If Europe was not mentioned at all in all the above, it is no coincidence. Apart from impractical plans that left no discernible mark, no trace remains of the unilateral and preposterous initiatives of French President (as of October 11) Emmanuel Macron, the European Union and the UN institutions. Is there a need for further proof of the leading status of the US as the sole superpower in the Donald Trump era, and the absolute marginality of Europe, which, apart from the background noise it created, contributed nothing to the advancement of the ceasefire?

And finally, the question of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was not awarded to the president on Friday. After the rumor already emerged from Oslo's halls that the win is contingent on a contribution to the establishment of a sustainable peace settlement, and not just the achievement of a ceasefire agreement, one can only hope and believe that if the process that Donald Trump created from scratch is indeed realized in practice and also leads to the expansion and upgrading of the Abraham Accords and the establishment of a new, more reconciled, and stable regional order, it will be difficult for the committee to object to his selection next year as the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

The post The 47th president's super-mediator model is the only path appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/10/12/the-47th-presidents-super-mediator-model-is-the-only-path/feed/
Beyond the day after: Trump's plan may reshape the Middle East https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/09/30/beyond-the-day-after-trumps-plan-may-reshape-the-middle-east/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/09/30/beyond-the-day-after-trumps-plan-may-reshape-the-middle-east/#respond Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:00:19 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1092461 White smoke did not rise Monday evening from the Oval Office during the Netanyahu-Trump meeting, and no official announcement came regarding a Gaza ceasefire and immediate release of all Israeli hostages. Nevertheless, this marked a significant turning point in the difficult campaign's history, potentially serving as the vital springboard for halting the fighting and perhaps […]

The post Beyond the day after: Trump's plan may reshape the Middle East appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
White smoke did not rise Monday evening from the Oval Office during the Netanyahu-Trump meeting, and no official announcement came regarding a Gaza ceasefire and immediate release of all Israeli hostages. Nevertheless, this marked a significant turning point in the difficult campaign's history, potentially serving as the vital springboard for halting the fighting and perhaps reshaping the entire Middle East arena.

For the first time in nearly two years, a plan has been developed and presented by President Trump's administration that has won support from Arab states and Israel, not only for the day after the fighting ends, but also regarding the region's future character and the cooperative processes and confidence-building measures that will define it going forward. This occurs under the stabilizing leadership of the American superpower.

The axis of evil

Not only does the new framework incorporate specific mechanisms intended to completely remove Hamas from the picture as a ruling body and as a murderous terror organization connected at its core to the regional apex of the axis of evil, namely Iran, but it is entirely anchored in a broad inter-Arab agreement regarding the need to mobilize and act jointly and institutionally to channel the bleeding front toward the desired destination of sustainable arrangements carrying the promise of economic prosperity and political moderation.

Smoke rises after an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City, Gaza Strip, September 16, 2025 (Photo: Mohammed Saber/EPA)

This, therefore, represents the profound meaning of the new framework plan that was released to the world on Monday evening, pending its final approval (with vigorous assistance from the entire bloc of Arab states, which will exert pressure on Hamas). This is a new reference framework whose basic principles cannot be ignored; at its core, the broad recognition that Hamas' time as Gaza's ruler has passed.

The multilateral institutions to be established, along with the organizational mechanisms that will govern their functioning, are intended to ensure the success of the promised de-radicalization process, which will secure Israel's safety and advance it toward a path of rehabilitation and growth. The ball is now in the hands of the American eagle, which is supposed to utilize all the available influence levers and is committed to the war's immediate end, to ensure that this framework regarding the contours of the new Middle East indeed materializes.

As for Israel, after nearly two years of difficult war and an unbearable number of casualties, one can only hope that the time of recovery and healing will arrive very soon. Given the fact that the special relationship fabric with the US has remained strong, and relations with moderate Arab bloc states have not unraveled, there is room to hope and believe that a new and calmer era stands at Israel's doorstep, both in the domestic sphere and, of course, in the regional arena.

The post Beyond the day after: Trump's plan may reshape the Middle East appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/09/30/beyond-the-day-after-trumps-plan-may-reshape-the-middle-east/feed/
Netanyahu has jeopardized relations with the US https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/09/14/netanyahu-has-jeopardized-relations-with-the-us/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/09/14/netanyahu-has-jeopardized-relations-with-the-us/#respond Sun, 14 Sep 2025 11:52:48 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1088121 Paraphrasing the legendary line by the 19th-century strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz, who argued that war should be the continuation of policy by other means, one could likewise say that a political arrangement, a deal, or even a ceasefire should emerge only after the guns fall silent. That is, provided we are not talking about […]

The post Netanyahu has jeopardized relations with the US appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
Paraphrasing the legendary line by the 19th-century strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz, who argued that war should be the continuation of policy by other means, one could likewise say that a political arrangement, a deal, or even a ceasefire should emerge only after the guns fall silent. That is, provided we are not talking about what Clausewitz termed a "total war," aimed at the unconditional destruction of the enemy without any thought to the day after.

In the reality Israel has lived in for nearly two years, it seems the pure, distilled logic of total war is what has guided the government's recurring pattern since the bitter day of October 7. The latest expression of the fact that most Israeli decisions in this period have been driven by tactical-operational considerations, while completely ignoring an entire cluster of strategic-political constraints and needs, both regional and global, was the attempted assassination of the leadership of "Hamas abroad" in Doha.

Hamas offices in Qatar following the strike. Photo: Reuters Reuters

Just as the failed 1997 attempt to assassinate Khaled Mashal, who later headed Hamas's political bureau, and in Jordan of all places, inflicted heavy diplomatic damage and deep embarrassment on Israel, particularly to the relationship of trust and intelligence-operational cooperation between the two countries, so too did the strike on Hamas leaders in Qatar intensify the diplomatic tsunami now threatening to return the state to the lowest point it has known since its founding.

In those distant days, when the Western powers, the US, Britain and France, turned a cold shoulder to Israel, while the inner ring of neighboring states encircled it with hostility, alienation and boycott, it was only Stalin's Soviet Union that came to Israel's aid with critical supplies of aircraft and oil. There is no disputing that this was a short and futile partnership that quickly faded into oblivion as Moscow's support for the Arab camp grew.

Yet despite the 1997 fiasco, and in complete disregard of the critical political and strategic considerations that should have stood as a glaring warning sign before the eyes of then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, last week the same picture repeated itself. The strategic and diplomatic arena was once again abandoned on the altar of a presumed tactical gain by that very same prime minister.

Devastating consequences

This time, however, the failure is far more serious, and its consequences could be devastating and systemic in scope. We are not talking about a sharp confrontation with the Hashemite Kingdom but about triggering a severe crisis with our only loyal ally and partner, the US. Not to mention the needless rift with the "complex" entity known as Qatar, with the Arab and Muslim world as a whole, with the entire international system, and with the worrying implications for the fate of the hostages.

First, remember that unlike Mashal, those in Doha whose lives were targeted were not living in the shadows or in hiding. They were acting openly on Qatari soil. Therefore, even if their time was limited and their blood was forfeit, what pushed Netanyahu to insist on taking them out precisely now, when the mediation process, with the US at its center, was still in full swing? What led him to think their successors would suddenly display moderation, a spirit of compromise and goodwill? Was Hassan Nasrallah, for example, any more moderate than his predecessor Abbas Musawi, who was eliminated in February 1992?

Airdrop of humanitarian aid over Gaza. Photo: AFP AFP

At bottom, if the aim was not to jolt the stuck ship and change its course, but rather to cut off any chance of reaching a deal and to continue waging "total war" even as its political, economic and social costs keep climbing and as the hostages' lives are ebbing away before our eyes, one is left with the impression that even after decades of fighting Arab terrorism, our leaders have still not freed themselves from the conception that the balance of power between the sides is the sole key to absolute victory.

This is a simplistic, ethnocentric mindset that assumes even murderous, fanatical and radical movements are driven by a desire to minimize damage and survive. Did the lessons of the low-intensity conflicts of the 20th century, such as the Indochina War, the Vietnam War and the war in Afghanistan, not prove time and again that the weaker side does not necessarily seek a military victory, but rather aims to exhaust its enemy, bleed it, break its spirit and weaken its internal and external support base?

Do not forget: the American breaking point in Vietnam was anchored precisely in demonstrating the Vietcong's willingness to engage in a kind of mass suicide by emerging from the darkness of the jungles into a frontal, hopeless clash with vastly superior American armor and forces. That was the turning point that showed decision-makers in President Johnson's administration that their enemy's operational code was fundamentally different from their own belief in the sanctity of life and the limits of risk that even terrorist and guerrilla organizations are prepared to take upon themselves.

An immediate need for statesmanship

Against this historical backdrop, it is also clear that the mantra of "absolute victory" is nothing more than a slogan. Continuing the strikes in Gaza will only accelerate the rapid erosion of our international standing, as everything painstakingly built since the state's founding to broaden Israel's circle of ties and partners shatters to pieces before our eyes.

Above all, the special fabric of relations between Washington and Jerusalem, which since the 1960s has provided Israel a robust safety net across every dimension, is coming undone. How can our leaders, so fixated on the tactical level, ignore Doha's immense strategic and business importance in President Trump's eyes, embarrass the president in the middle of negotiations his envoys are conducting with Israeli and Qatari representatives in the American capital, and not consult the White House before the strike?

US President Donald Trump, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: AFP/Getty Images AFP/Getty Images

And how can they fail to consider that, with a single stroke, they would sever the Qatari mediation channel? With all its complexity, as Netanyahu himself put it, Qatar was the most connected state to every part of the Arab world. Why cut that channel, even temporarily? Is this not a death blow to the broader regional normalization vision that President Trump has pursued tirelessly?

And who, exactly, will replace Qatar as mediator? Will it be the prime minister of Fiji, who is expected to honor us with a visit this week? Finally, in light of all this, what image of Israel is likely to form among the nations, especially in our Middle Eastern neighborhood? Will it not erode Israel's image as an anchor of stability and responsibility in a region riven by crises and fractures?

Amid this bleak and troubling picture, the UN's decision the day before yesterday to approve by an overwhelming majority of 142 states the "New York Declaration," which in essence constitutes a binding framework for implementing the "two-state solution" and explicitly supports the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state while calling for an end to the fighting in Gaza, is a clear sign of the immediate need for genuine political thinking.

In a globalized world that Israel seeks to join in various frameworks as a legitimate, respected state, showing disdain for international institutions and organizations, in the spirit of the first prime minister David Ben-Gurion's line "Um, shmum," will only deepen Israel's distress in every respect and could turn it into a kind of pariah state.

The post Netanyahu has jeopardized relations with the US appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/09/14/netanyahu-has-jeopardized-relations-with-the-us/feed/
Can the special relationship survive? https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/06/03/can-the-special-relationship-survive/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/06/03/can-the-special-relationship-survive/#respond Tue, 03 Jun 2025 03:08:05 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1063013 On December 27, 1962, in a Palm Beach, Florida, meeting with Israel's Foreign Minister Golda Meir, President John Kennedy described the US-Israel relationship as "special," drawing a parallel to the deep ties between the United States and Britain. This analogy underscored Washington's bond with London – an alliance grounded not only in mutual interests but […]

The post Can the special relationship survive? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
On December 27, 1962, in a Palm Beach, Florida, meeting with Israel's Foreign Minister Golda Meir, President John Kennedy described the US-Israel relationship as "special," drawing a parallel to the deep ties between the United States and Britain.

This analogy underscored Washington's bond with London – an alliance grounded not only in mutual interests but in a shared commitment to core values. The US, along with large segments of its public, viewed Israel as a vivid embodiment of the American principles of freedom, self-determination, and self-governance.

Over the past sixty years, this partnership has weathered numerous challenges, yet its foundation has held firm against crises that never undermined its core. American administrations have consistently avoided actions that could inflame tensions, given the broad support for these "special relations" within the US public and political system.

For example, in 1975, President Gerald Ford's effort to "reassess" ties to pressure Israel into a Sinai withdrawal faltered amid fierce domestic backlash. Likewise, President Jimmy Carter's attempt to broker an Israeli-Palestinian deal with Soviet coordination was dropped within days.

Historically, events seen as eroding the alliance's value-driven roots have yielded adverse outcomes for Israel. Notable cases include President George H.W. Bush's 1992 call to halt construction in Judea and Samaria as a condition for loan guarantees to support Soviet immigration absorption, and the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement, despite widespread opposition – culminating in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress.

President Donald Trump is greeted by Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani as he arrives on Air Force One at Hamad International Airport in Doha, Qatar, Wednesday, May 14, 2025 (AP / Alex Brandon)

In contrast to past crises, President Donald Trump clearly supports Israel, its historical legacy, and its role in countering terrorism and the "axis of evil." This support was evident during his first term and continues, to some degree, in his current tenure.

Yet Trump's recent Middle East policies challenge the other pillar of the special relationship – shared interests. Prioritizing American national interests, he has sidelined the US-Israel bond. Unlike his first term, where these pillars aligned, today's dynamics reveal a stark divergence.

Once seen as erratic, Trump now demonstrates a refined approach to foreign policy and security. The 47th president pursues his diplomatic vision with resolve, using diplomacy and soft power to reshape the Middle East under American dominance, forging shared interests with regional partners.

Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani welcomes President Donald Trump during an official welcoming ceremony at the Amiri Diwan in Doha, Qatar, Wednesday, May 14, 2025 (AP / Alex Brandon)

His goal of stable alliances to expand the Abraham Accords and mitigate conflict with Iran has spurred massive Gulf state deals. The equation is straightforward – advanced weaponry and technology, including a nuclear reactor for Saudi Arabia, in return for significant investments in the US economy.

Israel's integration into a regional alliance and normalization with Saudi Arabia were intended as the centerpiece of Trump's strategy. Saudi endorsement would have bolstered the partnership and integrated Israel into the Islamic world. However, Netanyahu opted to bypass this prospect, diverging from Israel's traditional policy of exploring every diplomatic avenue.

In response, Trump unveiled an alternative plan excluding Israel. Arms deliveries persist, but he has shifted to a strategy of isolation and distance. Houthi strikes were stopped without Israel's input, leaving it to face ongoing missile attacks from Yemen. Iran nuclear talks were initiated without notifying Netanyahu. Dialogue with Hamas started without Israel's knowledge. The new Damascus regime gained rapid recognition and relaxed sanctions. Trump's recent itinerary included Qatar but omitted Jerusalem – a grim picture of a partnership on a collision course.

Video: Trump arrives in Qatar on May 14, 2025 / Credit: Reuters

The Iranian issue underscores Israel's acute dilemma. Despite the IAEA's report that Iran is a nuclear threshold state, US diplomacy remains unchanged. For Netanyahu, with Iran's threat looming large, this is unacceptable. The window for striking Iran's nuclear sites, briefly opened during the Biden-Trump transition, appears to have closed with Trump's return to office.

An independent Israeli operation amid these talks would jeopardize Trump's vision of a restructured Middle East under US leadership. Such a move, nearly impossible without American backing, risks shattering the remaining ideological and strategic ties between Washington and Jerusalem.

The post Can the special relationship survive? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/06/03/can-the-special-relationship-survive/feed/
Israel's special relationship with US at risk https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/05/12/israels-special-relationship-with-us-at-risk/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/05/12/israels-special-relationship-with-us-at-risk/#respond Mon, 12 May 2025 12:00:00 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1057419 The relationship between the United States and Israel has reached a critical juncture, one that could jeopardize more than six decades of a deep, strategic, diplomatic and values-based partnership that over time earned the designation of a "special relationship." It appears that US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are fast approaching a […]

The post Israel's special relationship with US at risk appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
The relationship between the United States and Israel has reached a critical juncture, one that could jeopardize more than six decades of a deep, strategic, diplomatic and values-based partnership that over time earned the designation of a "special relationship."

It appears that US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are fast approaching a head-on collision over high-stakes regional and global issues. For Trump, swiftly ending the war in Gaza is a crucial building block in shaping his legacy as a determined leader who acts tirelessly to resolve or at least stabilize dangerous conflicts. He has already claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, and may even be able to bring about an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine.

"Unprecedented US Pressure." Trump and Netanyahu. Photo: Reuters

A key obstacle

The Gaza front holds particular significance for Trump's bid to present himself as a skilled mediator, as it is a prerequisite for advancing an ambitious framework to reshape the Middle East under American dominance. This vision hinges on reciprocal deals between Washington and Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia, where the US would provide its regional allies with advanced weaponry in exchange for massive investments in the American economy, thereby strengthening their military standing in the region.

The goal, as seen from the White House, is to form a broad strategic and diplomatic coalition backed by the US that could confront the Iranian threat or any other regional or global challenge to the emerging order.

Iranian missle launcher. Photo: Reuters

Yet a major obstacle remains: the central pillar of the new structure, Israeli-Saudi normalization, is still missing. The preconditions set by Saudi Arabia, Washington's key Gulf partner, include an end to the fighting in Gaza and an initial Israeli statement outlining a political horizon on the Palestinian issue. Neither has materialized. Netanyahu's government has so far prioritized expanding the ground operation in Gaza over securing its ticket to the new Middle East as a central player.

In the late 1950s, Israel played a leading role in establishing the "Periphery Alliance" with Iran, Turkey and Ethiopia - backed by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower – to curb the radical wave emanating from revolutionary Egypt. This time, Israel appears to be opting out, pushing itself to the margins of the emerging regional system.

On the eve of the 47th president's tour of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, the growing cracks between the longtime allies can no longer be ignored. The "special relationship," whose importance cannot be overstated, is under historic pressure. A real threat now comes from the left wing of the Democratic Party, while the isolationist wing of the Republican Party displays increasing detachment and alienation.

Israel is not a banana republic

This has bred frustration, anger and disappointment in the White House toward Netanyahu. In the early stages of the crisis, these sentiments were meant as signals, warning Netanyahu that he was "stepping on American toes" in sensitive areas such as announcing talks with Iran without consulting Israel, agreeing to a ceasefire with the Houthis while rockets were still being fired at Israel, and skipping Jerusalem on his regional diplomatic tour.

Now, this frustration is nearly out in the open. Both Trump and [National Security Advisor Matthew] Whitcoff are struggling to comprehend the strategic logic behind Israel's continued quagmire in Gaza, which they view as senseless and aimless warfare. Given Trump's hot-headed and blunt nature, and his preference for rapid progress and quick wins, one can assume that Netanyahu's procrastination could revive the memory of the 1975 "reassessment" crisis – but in a much more confrontational version.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Photo: AP/Evelyn Hockstein

The dramatic move that secured the release of Israeli-American hostage Idan Alexander – brokered without Israeli involvement and through direct negotiations with the Hamas terrorist organization – is just one of several developments that could further darken the skies over the special relationship. These could soon include a role for Hamas in postwar Gaza governance, even if only nominally "political" and not military, a nuclear agreement with Iran reached without Israeli consultation, and support for a Saudi civilian nuclear program without Israel's green light.

We are witnessing a determined US president, resolved to carry on the American tradition of high-profile conflict resolution, which began with President Theodore Roosevelt's mediation in the 1905 Russo-Japanese peace agreement and continued through the diplomatic efforts of legendary Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

History shows that Israel has never been a banana republic that says yes to everything. But this time, there seems to be overlap between the strategic goals of the Trump administration and Israel. This reality makes it harder for Netanyahu to lead the kind of political confrontation against the White House that he once did against President Barack Obama. Netanyahu and his government, primarily focused on their political survival, currently lack the broad Israeli public support necessary to pull it off successfully or for the long term.

The post Israel's special relationship with US at risk appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/05/12/israels-special-relationship-with-us-at-risk/feed/
'Vienna Accord 2': 4 deadlines pushing Iran back to negotiating table https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/04/13/vienna-accord-2-4-deadlines-pushing-iran-back-to-negotiating-table/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/04/13/vienna-accord-2-4-deadlines-pushing-iran-back-to-negotiating-table/#respond Sun, 13 Apr 2025 16:59:04 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1050109 A significant shift occurred yesterday in the tense and hostile relationship between Washington and Tehran, as diplomatic delegations from the two rivals met in Oman for the first time in ten years. The meeting marked the initial round of talks aimed at paving the way for a "Vienna Accord 2." From the Trump administration's perspective—having […]

The post 'Vienna Accord 2': 4 deadlines pushing Iran back to negotiating table appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
A significant shift occurred yesterday in the tense and hostile relationship between Washington and Tehran, as diplomatic delegations from the two rivals met in Oman for the first time in ten years. The meeting marked the initial round of talks aimed at paving the way for a "Vienna Accord 2."

From the Trump administration's perspective—having pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal three years after it was signed—a new agreement must, among other things, completely eliminate the risk of Iran completing its nuclear project. Such a development would not only allow Iran to intimidate the entire Sunni sphere but also add another layer of instability and anxiety to an already volatile region. It could even drive key regional players like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to follow a similar path to avoid being left exposed.

Missiles and Iranian flags . Photo: Reuters

It is important to emphasize that although Iran is currently facing a severe economic and financial crisis, and although its geopolitical standing has suffered considerably due to the dramatic weakening of several of its key proxies—foremost among them Hezbollah—this does not predetermine the outcome or trajectory of the newly launched process in Oman.

In 2018, the year Trump decided to withdraw the US from the original nuclear deal (signed in 2015 alongside other world powers) and gradually imposed a sweeping series of escalating sanctions on the Iranian regime, relations between the two countries were also marked by a fundamental asymmetry in terms of strategic resources and overall power.

US pressure triggered Iranian defiance

Despite this imbalance, the White House's coercive enforcement strategy bore no fruit and did nothing to soften Tehran's positions. On the contrary, US pressure led to Iranian defiance, one of the most alarming expressions of which was the systematic and gradual violation of the 2015 agreement's uranium enrichment cap (3.75%), reaching a dangerous level of 60%. This placed the Iranian terror state just a step away (90% enrichment) from realizing its nuclear nightmare.

Iranian Satellite Launch in 2022
According to the report, Iran is using its satellite program as a cover for nuclear weapons development. Photo: AFP

This defiance, despite the costs incurred, was not a one-off or unique event in modern history. For instance, in late 1939, Finland engaged in tough negotiations with the far more powerful Soviet Union and stubbornly rejected its territorial demands. The result was the "Winter War," a Pyrrhic Soviet victory that came at an unexpectedly high human, military, and economic cost for the Kremlin.

Similarly, resource-poor Japan refused to succumb to growing US pressure in 1940 and 1941, instead launching a surprise attack on the US on December 7, 1941. It waged a brutal war until its surrender in August 1945, only after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Despite the enduring gap between the operational mindset of Iran's leaders and the US's cost-benefit approach—untethered from ideology or faith-based frameworks—the strategic, diplomatic, and economic challenges Tehran faces today are fundamentally different from those of 2018.

Alongside its accelerating economic collapse (which carries the risk of widespread domestic unrest) and the downfall of several of its proxy groups responsible for subversive and violent initiatives, Iran now faces four looming and daunting deadlines that could prompt a reevaluation of at least some of its entrenched positions. (Notably, in parallel with the threats, Washington is also signaling a willingness to compromise—potentially giving Tehran a way to climb down from its defiant stance without losing face.)

A prerequisite for impressing Saudi Arabia

The first deadline is the two-month ultimatum issued by President Trump roughly two weeks ago for securing a "revamped Vienna Accord." If such an agreement is not achieved—or at least nearing completion, even partially—it could lead to the activation of a particularly painful military option.

Signing of the Nuclear Deal in Vienna, July 2015. Photo: AP

The second deadline is tied to Trump's scheduled visit to Riyadh in May. From the White House's perspective, it is essential to arrive in the region with either an agreement in hand or clear signs of accelerated progress—backed by the presence of a massive and ready military armada, projecting formidable strength and a willingness to act should talks break down.

This is a prerequisite for impressing Saudi Arabia (and other members of the moderate Sunni bloc) with the resolve and reliability of the US as a stabilizing power and Gulf protector. It also lays the groundwork for deeper strategic cooperation between these countries and the American hegemon—including, down the line, potentially expanding the Abraham Accords under Trump's leadership. At the same time, it would allow Trump to project the image of an unrivaled negotiator capable of resolving hotspots of tension and violence, as he pledged during his campaign.

The next target? Iran's nuclear facility (Archive). Photo: AP

The third deadline, likely to worry Iran even more, is the end of June. According to the original 2015 agreement, if a new deal is not reached by this time—and Iranian violations persist—some of the original signatories (Britain, Germany, and France) will reinstate sanctions that were previously lifted.

In other words, Iran could soon find itself caught in a tightening vise: the real possibility of US military action, followed closely by renewed European sanctions (on top of the heavy sanctions reimposed by Trump in 2018). All of this would be triggered unless Iran significantly softens its traditionally hardline stances.

Saber-rattling alongside conciliatory statements

To top it off, core provisions of the 2015 Vienna Accord are set to expire on October 18. For the US administration, the notion of Tehran emerging from this expiration date with a free hand on uranium enrichment—potentially posing an immediate and direct threat to the region—is unacceptable.

Against this backdrop, US-Iran talks began Saturday, with President Trump pursuing a "big stick" and "big carrot" approach: saber-rattling and show-of-force on one hand, coupled with softened rhetoric and an openness to compromise on the other.

Donald Trump. Photo: Reuters

Indeed, the very fact that another round of talks has already been scheduled for next week suggests some progress was made during the opening session—if only because the talks did not collapse or get suspended on the spot. Moreover, the dynamic that emerged (or was preplanned) between the two chief negotiators—American envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi—suggests genuine intent to continue the dialogue.

Initially billed as indirect talks—with Omani Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi serving as a go-between while delegations remained in separate rooms—the meeting evolved by its end (after two and a half hours) into a direct, albeit brief, encounter between Witkoff and Araghchi. This appears to be an incremental, modular process straight out of the Henry Kissinger playbook, with the next expected step being a direct, public, and televised meeting between the two lead envoys.

A long road ahead

At least for now, both adversaries appear interested in advancing the diplomatic track—each for its own reasons. Still, it's important to note that the opening session only scratched the surface, primarily involving the presentation and mapping of initial positions, relayed by al-Busaidi.

It's equally clear that these core stances are merely starting points. Just as back-channel talks can quickly evolve into direct negotiations, entrenched doctrines may eventually crack or loosen.

Steve Witkoff. Photo: Reuters

Witkoff himself already showed signs of flexibility, indicating before the meeting that the US demand focused on limiting enriched uranium levels—not necessarily dismantling Iran's entire nuclear project (in contrast with the Libyan precedent of 2003). Nor are there yet clear signs that Trump will insist—precondition-style—on an unequivocal Iranian commitment to sever ties with its violent proxies (including the Houthis) or to end (or significantly scale back and subject to effective oversight) its ballistic missile program.

Despite these early signs of cautious optimism—and despite the likelihood that Tehran's geopolitical standing will further deteriorate if its relations with Moscow cool (especially after the war in Ukraine ends), which would weaken its bargaining position—the road to a final agreement remains long and riddled with obstacles.

What is certain is that the launch of this diplomatic process (which, if it gains traction, would eliminate the military option) spells a decidedly unwelcome development for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover, even if a deal is eventually reached that fails to meet the strict criteria Netanyahu has long insisted upon, it's hard to imagine he would reprise his failed campaign against the original Vienna Accord and its chief architect, then-President Barack Obama—especially not against a friendly but determined and unpredictable president like Donald Trump.

The post 'Vienna Accord 2': 4 deadlines pushing Iran back to negotiating table appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/04/13/vienna-accord-2-4-deadlines-pushing-iran-back-to-negotiating-table/feed/
Traditional military logic is reversed, and Trump leads the charge https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/03/23/traditional-military-logic-is-reversed-and-trump-leads-the-charge/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/03/23/traditional-military-logic-is-reversed-and-trump-leads-the-charge/#respond Sun, 23 Mar 2025 16:43:26 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1045909 A dramatic reversal is currently unfolding before our eyes. The legendary maxim of Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz from about 200 years ago, which long ago became axiomatic, that war is merely the continuation of politics by other means, is being supplanted by a radically different worldview, exemplified in both thought and action by […]

The post Traditional military logic is reversed, and Trump leads the charge appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>

A dramatic reversal is currently unfolding before our eyes. The legendary maxim of Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz from about 200 years ago, which long ago became axiomatic, that war is merely the continuation of politics by other means, is being supplanted by a radically different worldview, exemplified in both thought and action by US President Donald Trump.

This new approach, diametrically opposed to Clausewitz's doctrine, holds that the use of violence, or the threat thereof through a forceful strategy of sabre-rattling, gunboat diplomacy, blunt threats, pressure tactics and sanctions, is precisely what should advance the 47th president's overarching global vision: the resolution and regulation of international conflicts, and the establishment of a stable global order. All this stems from the projection of American military might and resolve in confronting any actor that challenges the foundations of the international system and thus directly threatens US national security.

Trump watching the Yemen operation on screens. The White House

Gunboat diplomacy

Contrary to the prevailing view that Trump's actions are little more than a haphazard stream of impulsive improvisations, a deeper analysis of his approach to the host of wars and crises darkening today's global horizon reveals a systematic method. This method is evident in his painful strikes on Houthi positions and installations, his support for Israel's war against Hamas (along with sharp threats toward the terrorist organization if it refuses a ceasefire and the return of Israeli hostages from Gaza's tunnels), and his sweeping military actions, including retaliatory strikes, against Iran's proxies in Iraq and Syria. It is also present in his harsh rhetoric and pressure on Ukraine (though not on Russia) to impose a humiliating ceasefire.

The Pentagon's current military focus is on Yemen, which sharply encapsulates the core of the White House's "operational code." The escalation of attacks by the Houthis, proxies of Tehran fed from its hand, is now seen in Washington as the most immediate and serious threat to American (and Israeli) security, economic, and strategic interests. Once a pirate organization that terrorized shipping in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait and extorted protection payments from its victims, the Houthis have, with Iranian backing, become a brazen disruptor of one of the world's most critical trade routes. Their actions affect shipments of raw materials, oil and goods, and increasingly threaten freedom of navigation in both the Arabian and Red Seas.

US fighter jets that participated in the strike against the Houthis. Photo: US Military

The Houthis: An immediate threat

By attacking commercial vessels, and attempting to directly strike Israel, the Iranian proxy is severely harming the steady flow of goods, energy resources and supplies along a vital corridor connecting Asia to the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal, and from there to Europe and the Americas. There is no doubt that the American president, who is acutely sensitive to tariff issues on essential goods, cannot remain indifferent to the Houthis' unsustainable aggression. The alternative route, which bypasses Houthi-controlled waters by circling the African continent and adds at least two weeks to each journey westward, significantly inflates shipping costs and directly impacts the US economy.

All the strands connecting the Houthi front, the Gaza front, and US military flexing in Syria and Iraq lead straight to the heart of the matter: the ayatollah regime in Iran. And herein lies the essence of Trump's strategy. Through intense military pressure on all of Tehran's proxies, especially in light of Iran's deep military and economic decline following the collapse or retreat of some of its key allies (chiefly Hezbollah and Hamas, not to mention the downfall of Bashar Assad's regime, a loyal Iranian partner), the White House hopes to soften Iran's stance on its nuclear program and push it toward a better deal, distancing it significantly from acquiring a bomb. This strategy adds a new tool to Trump's diplomatic arsenal: the Russian factor.

Houthi rebels in Yemen. Photo: AP

Softening Iran's position?

As a seasoned businessman whose worldview is rooted in barter, Trump has already prepared what he sees as a compelling incentive for Moscow to enact this dramatic pivot: near-total support for President Vladimir Putin's positions regarding the terms of ending the war in Ukraine. Kyiv may be abandoned to its fate, but in Trump's view, this would pave the way for stabilizing the entire Middle East sub-system by uprooting Iran's revolutionary and subversive claws, and by neutralizing, or at least distancing, the nuclear threat it now seems so close to achieving. This would, in turn, secure Israel's existence and safety once and for all, as reflected in Trump and Putin's recent phone call.

Trump and Putin (Archive), Photo: EPA

The broader implication is the accelerated formation of a new global order between Washington and Moscow. However, this emerging bipolar world is likely to be a far cry from the tense, crisis-ridden model of the Cold War era.

What remains to be seen is whether this anti-Clausewitzian vision of political settlements, birthed through sabre-rattling or the use of direct or indirect military force against the emissaries of the axis of evil, will achieve its primary goal vis-à-vis Iran. And simultaneously, whether it will help bring about a swift end to the ongoing fighting in Gaza and lead to an agreement for the release of hostages who have been languishing for 18 months in Gaza's tunnels of torment.

The post Traditional military logic is reversed, and Trump leads the charge appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/03/23/traditional-military-logic-is-reversed-and-trump-leads-the-charge/feed/
Trump-Netanyahu summit marks historic shift in US-Israel relations https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/02/09/trump-netanyahu-summit-marks-historic-shift-in-us-israel-relations/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/02/09/trump-netanyahu-summit-marks-historic-shift-in-us-israel-relations/#respond Sat, 08 Feb 2025 23:12:49 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1033513 From a historical perspective, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's journey to Washington last week and his gesture-filled meeting with President Donald Trump can be compared to only three previous summits in the history of the special relationship. Two of these meetings, held in June 1964 and January 1968, were between President Lyndon Johnson and Prime Minister […]

The post Trump-Netanyahu summit marks historic shift in US-Israel relations appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
From a historical perspective, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's journey to Washington last week and his gesture-filled meeting with President Donald Trump can be compared to only three previous summits in the history of the special relationship.

Two of these meetings, held in June 1964 and January 1968, were between President Lyndon Johnson and Prime Minister Levi Eshkol. The third, occurring in September 1969, brought together President Richard Nixon and Prime Minister Golda Meir. These three meetings took place against the backdrop of American recognition of Israel as a strategic asset – a pro-American island of stability and strength within a radical arena where most players were supported and operated by the Kremlin. These meetings purely exemplified the "terms of affection" that characterized the relationship between the partners during the 1960s, yielding arms deals and commitments for such arrangements.

Just like those three historic meetings, the Trump-Netanyahu summit signaled a warming of relations following the relative coolness that characterized at least some of the Biden administration officials' approach toward Israel. As for Biden himself: Alongside his initial comprehensive support for Israel and the assistance provided following the October 7 atrocities (and positioning his forces to intercept Iranian missiles), he also did not spare his criticism and withheld crucial armaments during the war in Gaza.

In contrast, the Trump-Netanyahu summit proceeded without background noise or ultimatums. Instead, it transformed into a demonstration of solidarity with Israel and comprehensive military and diplomatic support, while fully backing Netanyahu's determination to dismantle Hamas control in Gaza. While the president's support for releasing all hostages and ending the fighting remained steady, it was overshadowed by his initiative to relocate Gaza residents to other regional countries and his vision for massive reconstruction of the strip, which according to his plan, would be transferred to temporary American control once fighting ceases.

Moreover, unlike the stated position of his aides and advisers in the recent past, this support was not accompanied by a sense of resolute and unequivocal presidential commitment to continue implementing the ceasefire agreement, including its transition to the second phase.

The Witkoff effect

The question arises: What caused this new emphasis in the 47th president's thinking that dramatically shifted his focus and interest during his meeting with the prime minister? It's reasonable to assume this wasn't the result of sophisticated manipulation designed to prompt Saudi Arabia in particular and the moderate Arab camp in general to increase pressure on Hamas to soften its positions, especially regarding its place and status in the aftermath. Trump's "operational code" is characterized primarily by intuitive and spontaneous flashes reflecting his worldview directly, rather than Machiavellian tactics pursuing goals through indirect and sometimes convoluted paths.

In this case, it's clear that the detailed and tangible description of Gaza's destruction, conveyed to the president by his trusted envoy Steve Witkoff, was the factor that led Trump directly to the idea of solving the Palestinian problem, at least in Gaza, through evacuating its residents and transforming the strip into an ambitious rehabilitation and renewal project under Uncle Sam's inspiration, image, and spirit. This can be seen as another distinct expression of what American researcher Stanley Hoffmann defined as the "engineering approach" in managing American foreign policy throughout its history.

Palestinians in the streets of Gaza City amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, Gaza Strip, February 6, 2025 (EPA / Mohammed Saber)

Indeed, like many presidents before him (such as John F Kennedy in his approach to Gamal Abdel Nasser's revolutionary Egypt in the early 1960s), Trump views the Middle East, which bubbles with hostility toward the West, through the practical lens of a businessman convinced that every problem has a fair solution and that there exists a universal definition of "rationality." The possibility that revolutionary movements and violent extremism fundamentally contradict notions of development and economic prosperity is foreign to the current president, as it was to many distinguished American leaders in the past. All remained captive to their ethnocentric view of the international arena, not all of which operates according to American concepts and logic.

Against this background, it's difficult to expect Trump's dream of transforming Gaza into an oasis will be translated literally into reality, even in the long term. However, this pessimistic forecast doesn't diminish the summit's definition as a success story, indicating that despite expected obstacles ahead (perhaps even in the short term), a new and promising era was launched in the American capital last Tuesday, set to bring another upgrade to the "special relationship."

The post Trump-Netanyahu summit marks historic shift in US-Israel relations appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/02/09/trump-netanyahu-summit-marks-historic-shift-in-us-israel-relations/feed/
Trump-Netanyahu summit - Can the circle be squared? https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/02/03/trump-netanyahu-summit-can-the-circle-be-squared/ https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/02/03/trump-netanyahu-summit-can-the-circle-be-squared/#respond Mon, 03 Feb 2025 04:00:48 +0000 https://www.israelhayom.com/?p=1032179 In 1958, at the initiative of Israeli diplomat and intelligence official Reuven Shiloah, the foundation was laid for the establishment of the "Alliance of the periphery," which included, alongside Israel, Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia. This partnership, fully supported, albeit discreetly, by the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was anchored in the shared regional fear […]

The post Trump-Netanyahu summit - Can the circle be squared? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
In 1958, at the initiative of Israeli diplomat and intelligence official Reuven Shiloah, the foundation was laid for the establishment of the "Alliance of the periphery," which included, alongside Israel, Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia. This partnership, fully supported, albeit discreetly, by the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was anchored in the shared regional fear of the subversive activities orchestrated by revolutionary Egypt under President Gamal Abdel Nasser. On a global scale, this concern was accompanied by a deep sense of threat in Washington, which viewed Egypt as a Soviet satellite state intent on challenging the standing of the pro-Western bloc throughout the Middle East.

Although the Iranian and Turkish pillars of this alliance did not withstand the test of time and have long since faded into oblivion, the structure itself can still be regarded as a model. Despite the transformations in global and regional circumstances and the nearly complete shift in the identities of the players involved, it exemplifies a modular framework built on separate bilateral agreements among partners, which also include a strategic security and intelligence cooperation component with their American patron.

Indeed, a similar model encapsulates the regional vision of the 47th president, which could be termed "Alliance of the periphery 2" or an expanded and upgraded version of the Abraham Accords. This vision has guided his approach as he embarks on his second presidential term. In this updated version, Iran has shifted from being a partner in the original Periphery Alliance to a central pillar in the axis of evil, subversion, and terrorism, echoing the radical and revolutionary character of Nasser's regime. Meanwhile, Egypt has long since closed the chapter on its unequal partnership with Moscow and aligned itself with the West. Yet in both cases, a single dominant factor - formerly the Soviet Union, now Russia - has worked to destabilize the balance of power and regional stability.

Netanyahu and Trump (Archive). Photo: AFP

Regardless, on the eve of the Trump-Netanyahu summit, it is clear that the president's top priority is expanding the Abraham Accords and integrating Saudi Arabia as a central player alongside Israel. Riyadh is expected to serve as the catalyst for the formation and institutionalization of a robust and stabilizing Middle Eastern coalition. With the backing of a protective and supportive American umbrella - both strategically and diplomatically - this partnership is, in the president's view, meant to serve as an effective deterrent against the ongoing threats posed by Iran and its local proxies. These groups, though significantly weakened by the war in Gaza and the seismic shock it created, remain a concern. At the same time, this alliance is expected to generate a wave of massive Saudi investments in American companies, potentially reaching an astonishing one trillion dollars.

This ambition to effect a dramatic regional transformation, one that would bring stability and normalization between Jerusalem and Riyadh while enabling the US to gradually disengage from the region and reduce the risk of military entanglements, could, if realized, provide a clear and tangible expression of Trump's commitment to securing his legacy as a peacemaker. In doing so, it would also pave the way for his highly coveted Nobel Peace Prize. The White House is acutely aware that this summit represents the first serious test of the president's second-term foreign policy, and it is determined to succeed within the first 100 days of his renewed administration.

However, this resolute American approach may soon collide with the different set of priorities held by Prime Minister Netanyahu. There is no doubt that Netanyahu seeks to bring Saudi Arabia out of the shadows and establish an open and formal partnership with Israel. Yet, despite its significance, this goal does not appear to be his primary focus at the moment. Two key concerns seem to take precedence for Netanyahu.

First, he seeks at minimum an American "green light" for an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, given Tehran's current military weakness and vulnerability. Second, he is determined to maintain his governing coalition and prevent the final withdrawal of key political partners essential to its survival.

These priorities could lead to fundamental disagreements between the two leaders, disagreements that may prove impossible to mask or downplay through diplomatic wordplay. Regarding Iran, even if Trump is willing to intensify the sanctions regime he imposed on the Islamic Republic during his first term, his aversion to international conflicts, let alone direct US involvement in them, will likely steer him toward a path of aggressive diplomacy. This approach would involve issuing threats and engaging in saber-rattling rather than direct or indirect military action in the Iranian sphere.

As for Netanyahu's political agenda, his focus on survival will dictate, above all, an avoidance of any explicit reference to the feasibility of a Palestinian state, whether in the short or long term. Additionally, this concern will likely prevent him from advancing or concluding the second phase of the current ceasefire agreement, as formally ending the war would, at least in theory, necessitate dismantling his coalition and heading to elections.

In terms of relative bargaining power, Trump appears to be in a far stronger position than Netanyahu. It is doubtful that the Israeli leader would be willing to openly confront the US president at this early stage of his second term and risk a rupture with such a friendly administration. Trump, for his part, is expected to try bridging the gaps by offering generous incentives and compensatory measures to Israel in exchange for its flexibility. These incentives could primarily take the form of advanced weapons systems with favorable supply conditions, sweeping political support, and possibly even a formalized defense agreement under improved terms for Israel. In any case, Trump's determination to bring the war to an end and secure the release of all hostages held by Hamas appears unshakable, as it is directly tied to his self-defined mission and legacy as a peacemaker.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Photo: AP/Evelyn Hockstein AP

Ultimately, the question remains: Can the circle be squared? Despite the challenges, this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. For instance, creative diplomatic phrasing reminiscent of the Camp David Accords and the Israel-Egypt peace treaty could be used to persuade Netanyahu to acknowledge the "legitimate rights of the Palestinian people." However, it remains unclear whether such a statement would be sufficient to achieve normalization with Saudi Arabia without collapsing the Israeli government. Another possibility, one that has been attempted multiple times with little success, would be for Netanyahu to agree to a gradual, multi-phase negotiation process with the Palestinians aimed at establishing a "Palestinian entity" upon completion. However, even this option does not appear particularly promising.

Given these complexities, the only practical way to prevent stagnation or crisis while allowing the president to achieve his goals would be for him to provide Netanyahu with a formal, explicit, and unequivocal commitment to support Israel's decision to resume military operations in Gaza in the event of a "significant violation" of the current framework by Hamas, an assurance that Netanyahu could present to his right-wing coalition partners.

It is to be hoped that following the summit, the situation will become clearer and that it will be determined whether "Alliance of the periphery 2" remains a viable scenario and whether the US-Israel alliance remains strong and resilient. Likewise, it will become evident whether this dramatic summit will be remembered as a success that further enhances the alliance or, despite its grand setting, as an event that failed to resolve fundamental disputes between Washington and Jerusalem.

The post Trump-Netanyahu summit - Can the circle be squared? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

]]>
https://www.israelhayom.com/2025/02/03/trump-netanyahu-summit-can-the-circle-be-squared/feed/